Guns, Risks, and Safety

One: I am generally in favor of stricter gun controls, but not because of what Adam Lanza did in Connecticut last Friday. Hard cases make bad law, and freakishly rare events prompt bad policies — as most Americans should be reminded every time they are forced to take off their shoes in airports. We should think about the role of guns in our society because of our day-in-and-day-out death toll, not the bizarre and horrific events in Newtown.

Human beings do this all the time: we alter our behavior in response to extremely rare events that happen elsewhere, but not in response to real problems that we face every day. Last month the faculty at Wheaton College, where I work, were all made to watch a video about what to do if we received word through our recently installed campus-wide information system that there was an intruder on campus. I’m sure that the Newtown massacre encourages our Risk Management people to believe that this was time well-spent (and that the money invested in the information system was well-spent, too). But leaving aside the question of whether in a moment of crisis anyone will remember what they saw on the video, it was still addressing something that has almost no chance of ever happening. Meanwhile, in my twenty-eight years on the faculty here I have never received any training in dealing with depressed and anxious students, something that I have to do on a weekly if not a daily basis. Such day-to-day challenges just aren’t dramatic enough to prompt a mandatory video session.

Two: This same warning against implementing policy decisions based on vivid-but-very-unlikely events applies to the people who are claiming that the answer to school massacres is arming our teachers. It’s especially ironic that this recommendation comes almost invariably from people who also believe in smaller government, because their chosen response to tragedy would be a government-mandated logistical quagmire: some government agency would have to buy the guns, train the teachers, set and enforce policies about gun storage and appropriate use, and so on and so on. And of course all this would just leave teachers with less time to confront the real and often quite serious problems they face every day.

I could write a very long blog post listing what’s wrong with the plan to arm teachers, especially the various unintended consequences that would spring from such a policy implemented nationwide. We can be absolutely sure that within a few years more people would be killed by teachers who fired their weapons accidentally or in misplaced anger or fear, or by students who stole their teachers’ guns, than have ever been killed in school massacres like those in Newtown and Columbine.

But what troubles me most about this suggestion — and the general More Guns approach to social ills — is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian “war of every man against every man” in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor for now — but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly.

Whatever lack of open violence may be procured by this method is not peace or civil order, but rather a standoff, a Cold War maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction. Moreover, the person who wishes to live this way, to maintain order at universal gunpoint, has an absolute trust in his own ability to use weapons wisely and well: he never for a moment asks whether he can be trusted with a gun. Of course he can! (But in literature we call this hubris.)

Is this really the best we can do? It might be if we lived in, say, the world described by Cormac McCarthy in The Road. But we don’t. Our social order is flawed, but by no means bankrupt. Most of us live in peace and safety without the use of guns. It makes more sense to try to make that social order safer and safer, more and more genuinely peaceful, rather than descend voluntarily into a world governed by paranoia, in which one can only feel safe — or, really, “safe” — with cold steel strapped to one’s ribcage.

UPDATE: I’m going to close comments on this post now, because the discussion has ceased to be productive. Thanks to all who contributed.

Hide 118 comments

118 Responses to Guns, Risks, and Safety

Looks like FBI stats indicate that rifles(assault rifles?) are involved in fewer homicides than hands and feet.
It hardly seems productive to outlaw assault rifles if so few murders are committed using them.

The greater point about assault rifles is they make it
expensive to intimidate the voting population one does not like.
Today’s Obama could be tomorrow’s Hitler and without lots and lots
of guns in the people’s hands, they would be easily intimidated by
the monopolists of violence. This law review,”Of Holocausts and Gun
Control,75 Wash.U.L.Q. 1237(online)” raises some interesting points
such as this: “but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not
one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there
have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was
armed.” http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/75-3/753-4.html What
most gun control advocates want is a government controlled monopoly
on lethal violence. Then the dangerous assumption they are positing
is that the government, although it changes hands every four or two
or six years will always be benign. Remember, the pendulum swings
and the government you like today can be the tyrant who hates you,
and your kind, tomorrow. Ask the Jewish people of WW2 Europe or the
Armenians in Turkey or how about the Cambodians of the seventies if
they thought their governing apparatus was going to turn on them
lethally? Do you want that tyrant to have a monopoly on lethal
violence? That is the very point of military style weapons in the
hands of many many civilians, there will be no Holocaust of a
disarmed minority if there is no monopoly. You want at least a
duopoly on the use of lethal violence and yes, it is messy but
there is no Utopia, and never will be. I think Samuel Butler called
it Erewhon or Nowhere. Also R.J. Rummel wrote a book, online
called” Death by government” where he enumerates the 170 million
deaths by government(he calls it Democide) in the 20th Century.http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

I’m not the smartest guy here, so let me ask what might seem to be a stupid question:

What were the western movies of my youth all about? Seems to me it was about someone who cleaned out the bad guys so that the local school marm could teach the kids in peace, and folks could go to church without having to arm themselves against random or maliciously directed violence & greed.

Have we come to a point where that was not the goal of a civilized society? Where taming the West boils down to everyone packing 6 shooters — Or nowadays, 600 shooters? I think by calling for everyone to carry a gun, we destroy civilization and we going backwards.

Another point, hypothetical:

Let’s say we all are packing. Let’s say there is a bad guy loose in a school, at a mall or a stadium or megachurch. Let’s say we all draw our guns. Will the crazy guy think that it is now time to kneel down and give up? Or will he think that he has achieved his objective — because he now has created a lot of help in random destruction. I think the latter.

Here is what I see as the most likely scenario:

Not all of us are marksman, and not all of us see events in the same way, so there will be lots of bullets sprayed that do not find the bad guy. He may even stage things to enhance this element of confusion. Let’s say me and my buddy both draw our pistols to bring down the bad guy. My buddy is not such a great shot, so his bullet hits someone on the other side of the madman. That guy’s buddy sees that my buddy shot his buddy, and so he shoots me. If I’m still functioning, I’ll shoot him back.

Circular firing squad — exactly what the bad guy wanted to happen in the 1st place. I can see bad guys congratulating themselves on the amount of damage done by friendly fire.

Bottom line, by arming everyone, we have increased the kill rate by crazies, while eliminating the civilized life that was achieved once the West was won.

Mr. Barnes’ comments are spot on. The founding fathers of all people understood how quickly a freely democratically elected government could be turned against its citizens. Mr. Jacobs argument that “Is this really the best we can do? It might be if we lived in, say, the world described by Cormac McCarthy in The Road. But we don’t. Our social order is flawed, but by no means bankrupt” is so untrue, I’ve got bad news for you Mr. Jacobs our society today is completely bankrupt from tyrannical politicians who usurp the Constitution on a daily basis to the acceptance of proven negative social values like abortion, one parent families, etc, etc, etc. You can turn a blind eye to it all you want but unfortunately Mr. Jacobs the truth is most of us do not live in the relative peace you wish to imagine. The fact is that evil and evil people are everywhere, from terrorist just waiting for an opportunity to strike to the down and out individual who would rather take from others than try to better themselves. The 2nd Amendment was not an accident, and its true intention is to indeed, as Mr. Barnes implies, provide the citizen with the ability to intimidate and keep our government in check, secondary (but just as important) are self defense of the individual/family, etc. Most if not all law abiding gun owners will always advocate that owning a gun requires being responsible and well trained. And contrary to popular belief, most gun owners are responsible and well trained, the NRA has over 5 million members (and growing at the rate of 8K (foxnews?) new members every couple of days, thanks to all the tyrannical talk of disarming americans) and are always providing excellent guidance on gun ownership. And I believe The Gun Owners of America group has even more members and are just as aggressive in providing training etc. Gun ownership is not only a constitutional right it is an obligation in order to protect our freedoms and liberties. There is nothing more to debate on these facts.

All events must be taken within a broader context, and when you have a president who is sending drones that not infrequently hit Middle Eastern schools and wedding parties, then responds to the Connecticut shooting with nice words about children being called home to God, the hypocrisy is palpable, and hypocrits are dismissed with a smile and a good dose of cynicism. Moreover, a country that has been fighting wars since the beginning of a new century, and looks for new wars on a daily basis, should not be suprised if the war mentality seeps into the the minds on the home front. Yes, law and policies cannnot be made from rare events, but violence is not a rare event in America, especially in the American mentality.

I have not heard a suggestion that the gov’t arm teachers. I have heard ones that teachers who are already CHL holders (i.e. already trained) should have the ability to arm themselves if they so choose.

I personally think it would wise to have someone at the front desk of schools to have non-lethal weaponry available – tasers or pepper sprays – either of which would have subdued the Newtown or Virginia Tech shooters long enough for law enforcement to arrive. When I heard the school nurse talk about how she hid under a desk while the shooter stood there, unable to do anything because she had no weapon…it broke my heart.

Ultimately, Mr. Jacobs has a weak argument (IMO). There is very social capital left in this society to maintain the social bonds required for civil society. Americans are highly atomized. Thet generally share little in common but bank accounts and tax forms.

In the wider culture, we see a cess pool. In governent, we see a growing police state. In a highly atomized society, with no sense we are in it together as another contributor put it, combined with rampant nihilism in the wider culture and a failing educational system, the growth of police state to hold society together by force is to be expected when the diminishing social capital ensures it can’t happen voluntarily.

Alan Bloom had a nice closing thought in The Closing of the American Mind. Mr. Jacobs’ reference to Hobbes brought it back. The gist of Bloom’s conclusion, written in the 8os, was that it was very much in question how history would judge America’s stewardship and suggested America may yet see a “war of all against all.”

There is something deeply dysfunctional in contemporary America that goes far deeper than gun access.

I am referring to Gretan as wel as the othetr refernce you make. I n my first response I did not know where it happened – just that it did happen.

And lest we stray from the point: There was no mob as yolu refer top it. There were people seeking a safe place — weather from flood waters, exposure or some other threat.

The choice to cordon these people off as opposed to help them was ion my mind an uncivil act. In both incidents, neither commun ity was really at threat. I want to be careful about thecifics. You have a bone to pick — it’s not with me. But your continued defense is my point. The response of either community is the point. I will say it again so that you get side tracked. Our reliance on guns used in both of these incidents to people in trouble — reflects our incivil responses, if we think that all is falling apart, each one for themselves.

As for my prose example,

your contention that said incident would never happen, needs only response. Trained men in firefights in which they are clear of their enemy and targets — are mindful of one reality –

Freindly fire is real, and not uncommon. When gunfire starts, the level of distraction and confusion increases the level of chaos. Waco, is a perfect example of trained personnel engaging a specific target in a very localized event. yet these trained professionals managed to shoot each other.

Now your response will undoubtedly be that those licensed with conceal and carry weapons will be trained. They will not be ttrained in multiple gunfire scenarios using multiple weapons. I not only thin it’s possible, I think it is likely.

As for yourcomplaint about science. First, there is definitive science concerning the predictability of the human mind of behavior. People are unpredictable. What we do know is that on very rare occassions, a human will engage in mass shootings. The liklihood of that occuring at a public school is less than .0016%. So kids in school are safe. There is neither a need to arm anyone more than what exists in the status quo. Second, The number of these incidents has been decreasing for the last twenty or so years. Despite this years high, it does not reflect the trending data. Third, No one has more love and care for Miss Coulter than I, but those who are advocating more carry and conceal weapons in response to this issue are flat out missing the target. Not to mention — violent crime in almost every area has been in decline for several years. Yet, despite these decreases, no psychiatrist, statistician or probability studies reseracher will tell you that they can predict who, when, where or why the next such incident will occur. Fourth, the only thing scientiifc about these incidents are the coroner, and police reports — designed to reflect the hard data.

i am going to end where I started and extend. I have no idea what the motives of either community, in the incidents mentioned. As per my position it does not really matter. The fact remains, they reflects, my argument. Guns and their use are part of who we are. Anbd attempts to seperate us from their ownership is lost in our deeply held belief that, if we think society has collapsed, the gun is our best hope of survival. I do appreciate your refernce to the specific locals in which people were actually shot. In my post I was not specific and my openess to be in err, led me to think your refernce was the one in question. Apparently, Gretna was the lessor of the two uncivil responses to people in trouble. Both support my position. Appreciate that.

I am not an advocate for gun control save as safety and management. All personal weapons should be fingerprint guided, and weapons registration is reasonable. Maybe a couple of other expectations — but by and large I think the second amendment is what it is on it’s face. Anything, short of an amendment to change it – is a reach.

This perfectly illustrates an important general principle. We live in a world that is governed by the laws of probability, yet almost no one understands this. We obsess over rare events and ignore the real threats that surround us every day. And, we grieve over the loss of our children but continue to support a foreign policy that kills children in other countries.

I wouldn’t worry about the proofreading; It’s damn near impossible to avoid typos in these off-the-cuff internet remarks.

I suppose we’ve reached a standstill then regarding Gretna. You are simply wrong on the facts in this particular instance. But, interestingly enough, you are drawing the right conclusion (the US is an increasingly uncivil society).

I enjoyed exchanging words with you, and I want to apologize to you specifically if my tone seemed unnecessarily sharp.

I find it diffiuclt to believe that the founders wanted the people armed to violently overthrow the government

Of course it’s what they meant. They just fought a revolution against the British crown. They understood what history has shown to be true over and over again. Governments have the potential to become abusive.

Today’s US government is actually far more egregiously abusive than King George’s. I wonder if King George would have authorized repeated drone strikes with civilians and kids in the line of fire? It sounds more like something Stalin or Pol Pot would do.

when they declined to give them universal suffrage to peacefully overthrow it.

People who don’t like the second amendment and people who don’t know anything about history often draw from the same pool.

It would explain gun control advocates aversion to history-based arguments that show a potential for government abuse and corruption and thus the need for a strong second amendment; they don’t know anything about history.

I agree with most of what you say. Particularly about arming teachers. To expand on what you said, what about the teacher who is just not comfortable handling a gun or has religious issue with guns and killing. Do we fire a perfectly good teacher because he/she does not want to handle guns? Except for the crazed, it is one thing to practice shooting another individual, it’s another to actually do it. A moment’s hesitation may be all it takes to lose your security force and put another gun in the hands of the killers. Also someone who is crazed may find it a challenge, just like the video games they play, when they might come up against opposition.
My major disagreement with you is in the characterization of mass murders as freakishly rare events. A recent USA Today article using statistics from 2006 -2010 found they occur on an average of every two weeks. Mass murders being defined as 4 or more victims (FBI definition). Many of these were not as horrific as Newtown, but they certainly deserve our attention.

“I agree with most of what you say. Particularly about arming teachers. To expand on what you said, what about the teacher who is just not comfortable handling a gun or has religious issue with guns and killing. Do we fire a perfectly good teacher because he/she does not want to handle guns?”

Armed teachers, higher school walls? How about malls, libraries, pubs…. any public place? Why not drive armored cars? This sort of solutions seem to me along the same line with our government creativity to the shoe bomber; have everyone take their shoes off at the airport!